If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Please use the contact us link at the bottom of the page for issues, complaints, and/or questions. Contacting any other persons within the AVfM Organization will not garner the "trickle down effect" nor will it get you a quicker response.
Al

NOTICE:
The views expressed by the members of this forum DO NOT necessarily reflect the views of A Voice for Men (AVFM), its owner, or its management.

I think you need to scroll back - points 1-4 were a summary of what YOU said and no, not the same thing at all. To repeat, I have no objection to using the term to mock them, I do however object to and think that people here should not make the same mistakes they have.

Comment

And what do you think is going to better received: When "facts and logic" are referred to as "a narrative" or when "facts and logic" are presented as such? A narrative (or "discourse" just as bad) only exists in the mind of the narrator. Facts exist independent of the narrator. It helps to move people out from being stuck in their subjective view and experience of things, into the objective.

"Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one" - Charles Mackay

And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; It tolls for thee. - Donne

"What we are seeing in this headless misandry is a grand display of the Tyranny of the Underdog: 'I am a wretchedly longstanding victim; therefore I own no burden of adult accountability, nor need to honor any restraint against my words and actions. In fact, all efforts to restrain me are only further proof of my oppressed condition.'
"It is the most perfect trump-card against accountable living ever devised." - Gladden Schrock

"What remains for most men in modern life is a world of expectation without reward, burden without honor and service without self" - Paul Elam

Comment

This is a classic feminist woozle. You are conflating two different issues.

If we describe the phenomenon of what feminists are doing as "creating a narrative" it doesn't mean that we endorse doing the same thing ourselves.
First of all, feminists don't use "facts and logic"to create their narrative. This is what we largely object to. In fact, we wish "facts and logic"were what is used to create society's narrative. But that's not happening. It doesn't mean we should stop using the word.

Why not ask feminists to stop using the word "rape" seeing as rape is such an objectionable thing?

“No one is free who has not obtained the empire of himself. No man is free who cannot command himself.”
― Pythagoras

Comment

I really think you are not paying attention and are simply just frustrated with my argument and attempting to cast me aside using the old "you must be a closet feminist canard". I was going to review it for you.. but I'm convinced you STILL will not get my point, and don't actually want to: preferring a defensive stance. It's all laid out here for everyone to see, have another read over it. You're inventing strawmen to defeat is all but not actually addressing what I'm saying.

This is a classic feminist woozle. You are conflating two different issues.

If we describe the phenomenon of what feminists are doing as "creating a narrative" it doesn't mean that we endorse doing the same thing ourselves.
First of all, feminists don't use "facts and logic"to create their narrative. This is what we largely object to. In fact, we wish "facts and logic"were what is used to create society's narrative. But that's not happening. It doesn't mean we should stop using the word.

Why not ask feminists to stop using the word "rape" seeing as rape is such an objectionable thing?

Comment

Any time you hear the word 'narrative', it should signal to you that what you are hearing is a work of fiction

Quite simply, you are wrong. Hearing that word does not mean I'm listening to a work of fiction. Real factual events can be narrated as well. There can be a narrative built around truths and there can be a narrative built around untruths.

Please, please, please can the MRA's STOP using that word, FFS - OMG, we don't need "narratives" or counter-anything... we need to divorce ourselves from that ideology and approach and use: facts, reason, logic, etc.. to argue with instead.

Please stop indulging them in their own nonsense!

We are not indulging anyone in any nonsense. The concept of building narratives has been around since people lived in caves. It's a real thing. Not all narratives are nonsensical.

“No one is free who has not obtained the empire of himself. No man is free who cannot command himself.”
― Pythagoras

Comment

Okay... so after a good nights sleep, what I see happening here is the following:

1. Initially, the world evolved around more stoic types of knowledge and truths, i.e...."human nature", "ground truths", "objective reality", etc..

2. Then some sort of post-modern and post-structural thing hit that seeks to deconstruct #1 above and effective demoralized people.

In part, these philosophies state that claims to knowledge and truth are products of unique social, historical or political discourses and interpretations, and are therefore contextual and constructed to varying degrees = moral relativism, plurality. It also, argued that human culture may be understood by means of a structure—modeled on language (i.e., structural linguistics)—that differs from concrete reality (#1 above) and from abstract ideas = "their narratives". This is sort of the basis underlying modern feminism and other annoying social justice warrior and politically correct stuff.

3. I'm hearing from you and indeed if you look over Paul's stuff - it would suggest that AVfM is basically a deconstruction of #2 using their same tactics, and so not surprisingly - you will adopt similar ways of describing it, its the same philosophical approach to doing things. e.g. "counter theory".

I object to that... or, not so much object (do what you want...) so much as I'd rather restore #1, than deconstruct #2 (itself a deconstruction of #1). I happen to think that the philosophical systems of postmodernism and poststructuralism are responsible for a good deal of personal emotional and mental health issues in people because it's just bizarre "logic" or way of doing things and that there are better approaches that move away from those schools of thought entirely.

Comment

Okay... so after a good nights sleep, what I see happening here is the following:

1. Initially, the world evolved around more stoic types of knowledge and truths, i.e...."human nature", "ground truths", "objective reality", etc..

2. Then some sort of post-modern and post-structural thing hit that seeks to deconstruct #1 above and effective demoralized people.

In part, these philosophies state that claims to knowledge and truth are products of unique social, historical or political discourses and interpretations, and are therefore contextual and constructed to varying degrees = moral relativism, plurality. It also, argued that human culture may be understood by means of a structure—modeled on language (i.e., structural linguistics)—that differs from concrete reality (#1 above) and from abstract ideas = "their narratives". This is sort of the basis underlying modern feminism and other annoying social justice warrior and politically correct stuff.

3. I'm hearing from you and indeed if you look over Paul's stuff - it would suggest that AVfM is basically a deconstruction of #2 using their same tactics, and so not surprisingly - you will adopt similar ways of describing it, its the same philosophical approach to doing things. e.g. "counter theory".

I object to that... or, not so much object (do what you want...) so much as I'd rather restore #1, than deconstruct #2 (itself a deconstruction of #1). I happen to think that the philosophical systems of postmodernism and poststructuralism are responsible for a good deal of personal emotional and mental health issues in people because it's just bizarre "logic" or way of doing things and that there are better approaches that move away from those schools of thought entirely.

Your milage may vary.

Pretty good analysis. But keep in mind the forum by far is AVfM readers, though a few members are making contributions as occasional writers. From reading AVfM for many years, the taglines used are not really reflected in any direct way in the content. There are some deconstruction type articles from specific writers, who have nearly all being doing so for a great many years before AVfM, but mostly even those are compare and contrast in style, and overwhelmingly reference literature, historical or other data sources. You then have a body of non professional writers who share their experiences, pieces of study they have reviewed or checked source data for, or describes issue or activist topics of interest.

AVfM to the best of my knowledge doesn't direct content policy by anything more than its mission statement. Each author reads and responds to comments, and those comments are moderated in accordance to the openly stated policy - which is about treating people fairly and not derailing the purpose of AVfM. Feminists have complained that they don't get to complain on AVfM comments, yet they are allowed to discuss, challenge or debate the material, just that they have no right to lecture AVfM readers about feminist theory. The average AVfM reader is very well acquainted with it, it's repetitive ubiquitousness is well known to us.

I have some interest in your idea, I'd like to go the direction of 1 too. But I think you need to judge AVfM from the material, especially comment on and offer constructive criticism on current material rather than taglines first used 8 years ago. You have to remember AVfM was incredibly isolated and even more controversial when it first started. By far the most interest shown towards it was by feminists seeing as the backlash of men incapable of dealing with 'equality' they presupposed. Which is and was a very typical form of narrative control, that AVfM has successfully challenged.

Comment

This is a fair analysis and criticism - I'm totally new here and just getting oriented; each place has a distinct culture and so I def am trying to come to grips with what that is here. I was finding myself confused about why some people seem to relate to me as though I'm a #2 they need to deconstruct but I understand that better now, it seems to be a primary angle for this site - so now I'll understand that dynamic better when I encounter it.

Regarding #1. I think there are two things that can be done though I don't know if they fall under the AVfM auspice or not?

Focus people on absolutes: many will find that in science (as I have, gravity - is absolute) or The Church... How people find their own "truths", I'm less concerned with - only that they do as it gives them an anchor in absolutes.

The other thing I think that is useful is to broaden the discussion (which may happen a lot here and I've just not seen it) to include not only "content" (facts and figures about things) but also teach people the underlying process operating, so they can identify it:

What is cultural marxism, postmodernism, poststructuralism and social construction? How does it work, what does it lead to and why and how does it fail?

I don't think that many people are philosophical scholars and tend to encounter these things indirectly and are stuck trying to "figure it out" because it's so bizarre... often times, it helps to frame it for people. Incidentally, this was how I ended up being an "accidental" feminist... I hated their reasoning and stuck to the sciences but it's so pernicious and pervasive nowadays you can not get away from it and end up hearing it all around you!

I do think AVfM has been very useful - don't get me wrong, I don't mean to be overly-critical here. Is Paul still in charge of it or has he moved onto other things?

I have some interest in your idea, I'd like to go the direction of 1 too. But I think you need to judge AVfM from the material, especially comment on and offer constructive criticism on current material rather than taglines first used 8 years ago. You have to remember AVfM was incredibly isolated and even more controversial when it first started. By far the most interest shown towards it was by feminists seeing as the backlash of men incapable of dealing with 'equality' they presupposed. Which is and was a very typical form of narrative control, that AVfM has successfully challenged.

"De-polarize women and re-moralize men." - Me

Comment

I understand how postmodern 'analysis' and critical theory work and that it's "them" creating "narratives". Does the MRM consider itself to be an -ism as well, if not why do you guys use it and not make your points from a place of reason, logic, etc... Example:

You come off sounding exactly like them is my point when you use their jargon and it send up the same alarm bells in your audience that hearing "narrative" should = fiction.

The only time I use the word "narrative" in the way you're discussing here, is when I'm deconstructing a "false" narrative, that is a narrative which deliberately includes false information, or leaves out mitigating information to make a political point.

An example would be a news story saying "Man kills three teenagers" being used to paint it as though we have a serious gun violence problem and need additional gun control. But when you read the facts those three teenagers were armed and had broken into that man's home. The word narrative is a very effective and concise way of starting the explanation that lets the reader know that the original story is misleading, either by outright mis-information or omission of facts.

I agree that we don't need to strut around talking about defining our own "narratives", but the word itself is exceedingly useful in describing the stories ideologues construct from partial or misleading facts.

"...but when she goes off you, she will not just walk away, she will walk away with your fucking skin in a jar." ~~ DoctorRandomercam
"The laws of man, they don't apply when blood gets in a woman's eye" - The Black Keys

The only time I use the word "narrative" in the way you're discussing here, is when I'm deconstructing a "false" narrative, that is a narrative which deliberately includes false information, or leaves out mitigating information to make a political point.

An example would be a news story saying "Man kills three teenagers" being used to paint it as though we have a serious gun violence problem and need additional gun control. But when you read the facts those three teenagers were armed and had broken into that man's home. The word narrative is a very effective and concise way of starting the explanation that lets the reader know that the original story is misleading, either by outright mis-information or omission of facts.

I agree that we don't need to strut around talking about defining our own "narratives", but the word itself is exceedingly useful in describing the stories ideologues construct from partial or misleading facts.

Comment

I just think that presenting "the facts" is more effective than presenting a "counter-narrative" to help someone arrive at an objective truth.

::getting off my soapbox now I have work to do, lol::

And I'm agreeing with you. Pointing out facts is how you counter a false-narrative.....but the word narrative is still useful in identifying a story that's deliberately hiding or misrepresenting those facts.

"...but when she goes off you, she will not just walk away, she will walk away with your fucking skin in a jar." ~~ DoctorRandomercam
"The laws of man, they don't apply when blood gets in a woman's eye" - The Black Keys